The Idea of Freedom in Burma
The title of this post is from an article published in 1996 in Pacific Affairs, Vol. 69, No. 2. In a little under twenty pages, Josef Silverstein surveys the history of Myanmar (then Burma) and the development of concepts of political freedom. Aung San Suu Kyi, the central figure in the democratic movement, has been explicit about the link between Buddhism and freedom. Below the fold, I quote excerpts from the article, which I recommend if you’re interested in the background of this turmoil. I learned quite a lot from it, myself.Aung San Suu Kyi thinks that Myanmar could solve its problems “by turning to the words of the Buddha on the four causes of decline and decay; failure to recover that which has been lost, omission to repair that which hasbeen damaged, disregard for the need of a reasonable economy and the elevation to leadership of men without morality or learning.”
Earlier leaders, before the current military regime, also emphasized the connection with Buddhism: “Using Buddhist stories and drawing upon the Buddha’s teachings,
Nu [a prime minister during the democratic state in Myanmar] sought to explain how free and democratic societies worked, and taught the people that where government’s power was limited and exercised in conformity with the law, man could fulfill himself both as a Buddhist and as a citizen.”
However, it does seem that the West holds some responsibility for the liberal notions of freedom taking hold in the country (as well as responsibility for the post-colonial chaos it finds itself in presently). Before the British occupation, no one questioned the monarchical government’s legitimacy. Freedom was part of life at the level of the village, as the king’s power was limited to the larger scale, such as tax collection, defense of the state. Buddhism did not tend to view political systems and ideas such as freedom to be part of their concerns. Government was, just as everything else, impermanent. It was not a means to solve the problem of suffering. Silverstein argues that “freedom” wasn’t understood as a self-standing concept deserving pursuit. Under British colonialism, that changed.
Speaking of this time, Silverstein says
“It was in this new and changing context that the idea of freedom took on meaning for the Burmans. Set in a legal and constitutional framework, it theoretically applied to all: individual and group; ruler and ruled; indigenous and alien. To use and enjoy it required knowledge of the law, the political system and experience.”
A peasant movement grounded in Buddhism arose:
”Out of this movement came the most direct challenge to British rule, the Saya San Revolt in 1930. Led by an ex-monk, it sought to force the British out and restore the monarchy. By using magic and amulets and imitating some of the royal ritual to claim the former throne, the revolt, mainly in central/lower Burma, drew modest rural support and hardly any from the urban areas. Its failure marked the end of inward and backward-looking movements”
It sounds as if the shift from monarchy to democracy is more out of pragmatism than ideology. However, from Silverstein’s analysis, it seems that Buddhists realized some degree of political freedom is necessary to give space to the religious actions that diminish suffering. Thus, the state isn’t a means to nirvana, but it can facilitate the sangha’s actions.
After the British, the Japanese occupied Burma for a time before being expelled. Although a constitutional Burmese government was set up in 1948, it lasted only until 1962, when the military usurped power. Apparently, part of what led to this movement was the perceived weakness of the constitutional system, which set up Buddhism as a religion with a “special position” and was taken to implicitly authorize it as the state religion. That, along with the disagreement about whether the government was federal or unitary, how many rights minorities enjoyed, and government corruption, led to the situation in 1962.
Since then, the country has been controlled by the military and (since 1974) its political arm, the Burma Socialist Party. Despite an election on May 27, 1990 (after the 1988 protests) and the people’s decision to form a parliament, the military has remained in control, refusing to fulfill the popular mandate.
Silverstein understands the clamoring for freedom to be tied into the Buddhist and traditional past of Myanmar, but also cultivated by the colonial experience. To say it is a “Western” movement seems an oversimplification, but similarly, so does ignoring the fact that Buddhism before colonialism was not particularly interested in building liberal democracies.